Ban on Non-disclosure Provisions in LAD Settlements Will Remain: That's a Good Thing
The fact is that the purpose for making these settlements public is to prevent future bad conduct.
March 21, 2022 at 07:00 AM
4 minute read
Employment LawIn a recent article published by the Law Journal, in the Employment Law special section on March 14, the author astonishingly opines that the enactment of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12.8 (a), which prohibits confidentiality agreement in settlement agreements in discrimination lawsuits, has resulted in a chilling effect on settlements. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and the author utterly failed to provide any statistics supporting his outlandish assertion.
Clearly employers (who he and his firm represent) always want their settlements to be confidential. Why expose the unlawful acts of their company to the world at large? Why expose an executive of the company who routinely subjects his female employees to unwarranted comments and advances? The fact is that the purpose for making these settlements public is to prevent future bad conduct. Imagine if all the settlements paid out to the victims of Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly and Matt Lauer were made public from the first settlement. Those individuals would have been fired long ago. Individuals such as Gretchen Carlson would never have had to suffer from the pain and humiliation that they [she] did, let alone the damage to her career. A defense lawyer who opposed the bill, the current President of the New Jersey State Bar Association, admitted during a panel discussion at the bar convention last May that he was wrong; he agreed that the bill that prohibits discriminators and harassers from silencing their victims has not had a negative impact settlements.
It is even more disturbing that the author incorrectly cited a dead bill and misrepresented both the substance and intent of the bill. Assembly Bill No. 4637 died at the end of the 2020-2021 session, without even having been heard in Committee. The Senate version, S3352 was reported from the Senate Labor Committee, but also died without a Senate vote. The bill has been reintroduced this session as A1691. It has not yet been reintroduced in the Senate. This bill, originally sponsored by employee rights champion Senator Loretta Weinberg (now retired), seeks to strengthen the Law Against Discrimination, not weaken it.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Approves $667K Settlement Against Independence Blue Cross for Unpaid, Pre-Shift Computer Work
4 minute readLawyers Warn: Little-Noticed Report Could Spell Bad News for Employers
6 minute readDon't Rush to Change That Noncompete Just Yet, Employment Lawyers Advise
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250